Kant's Moral Philosophy Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Kant's Moral Philosophy - Term Paper Example Argument or view Kant’s Deontology posits that the best way to act morally to act from duty with the consideration of the highest good, that is, a good without condition which is intrinsically good by itself (Kant, 1780). He formulated his deontological ethics in a categorical imperative of doing good for the sake of good regardless of its consequence (Kant, 1785). Explication of argument To effectively argue that Kantian Deontology is the correct moral theory, it would be necessary to explain the formulation that executes Kant’s deontology which is categorical imperative. According to Kant, imperatives imply what they meant which are command such as â€Å"wake up early†. Often they are hypothetical imperative because they only serve a specific objective or purpose such as â€Å"wake up early so you will not be later for work. This imperative or command becomes categorical when it is applied universally and that the actions and decisions of individuals are to be judged solely by their motivations and that the consequences do not matter morally (as in the case of hypothetical imperative) neither the intended consequences nor the actual consequences matter morally; only the principle or rule we follow if we do the action matters morally. In simpler terms, this meant doing what is good regardless of consequence and that by doing is an end by itself. Thus, actions themselves become an end and this action should be a rational result in the exercise of freewill Consistent to this, Kant’s categorical imperative states that every person has the duty to use and exercise his goodness/humanity as a means to an end. The application of Kant’s categorical imperative is best illustrated in slave ownership. A slave owner may assert his right to own a property which in this case is a slave. While ownership by itself is not immoral, slave ownership becomes unethical or immoral according to Kant’s categorical imperative because it depriv es a person of his free rational action and that persons can never be a mere means to an end (Johnson, 2012). One distinct characteristic of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it is universal and inflexible that it applies to everyone without exception. For Kant, neither good nor bad luck affects in assessing the moral act of a person. His idea of â€Å"goodwill† did not become good because it serves an end or objective but because it intends to do â€Å"good† regardless of the consequence. Objection The best objection to Kant’s deontological ethics as formulated by categorical imperative is Thomas Nagel’s argument about moral luck. Unlike Kant, Thomas Nagel makes an exception through his assertion of moral luck that there are a broad range of externalities that affects moral judgment. Moral luck occurs when â€Å"an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control† (Nelkin, 2013). It meant that we should only be assessed morally only to the extent that the factors attendant to the circumstances of our actions that we can control as stated in his â€Å"control principle†. This argument also hold sway because it consider the realities and externalities of which an action must be carried out and therefore, an act is best judged by considering its environment.